Real People, Real Problems

The Copenhagen Consensus Center interviewed more than 50 people, all around the world. Our goal was to ask them about their priorities and concerns, and then consider the policy options that would help the most. Too seldom do we hear from the local people who are said to be in danger. These people are not voiceless; we just pay no attention to what they say.

How Much Have Global Problems Cost the World?

A Scorecard for Humanity is a new project from the Copenhagen Consensus Center. Here we address the long-running debate raging between scholars asking the question, Is the world is getting better or worse?

Ranking Smart Solutions

Every four years since 2004, the Copenhagen Consensus Center has hosted a high profile thought experiment about how a hypothetical extra $75 billion might best be spent to solve twelve of the major crises facing the world today.

Now you're able to have your say on our new site, RankSmartSolutions.com. Click below to make your own prioritized list.

Copenhagen Consensus Center

We work with some of the world's top economists (including 7 Nobel Laureates) to research and publish the smartest solutions to global challenges. Through social, economic and environmental benefit-cost research, we show policymakers and philanthropists how to do the most good for each dollar spent.

The Economist

An overview of Copenhagen Consensus' ground-breaking research which is shaping the thinking for the 193 governments about to prioritize the smartest development goals for 2016-2030. If you've just read the article in The Economist you might be interested in exploring more about our project, and the research we've undertaken so we have put together an online supplement with more in-depth information.

Preliminary rating of all OWG goal proposals

In our new report, a total of 169 targets have been assessed by 30+ of the world’s top economists, and categorized into five ratings based on evidence of economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits. While we applaud that the OWG’s final outcome document contains 43 less targets than the previous document, we are concerned that many targets have simply been combined, therefore reducing the number of both phenomenal and poor targets assessed according to our cost-benefit analysis. Our new assessment includes suggestions for how these can be improved as reported in this article by Financial Times.

A lot to learn

“I've served on four 'experts committees', beginning in 2004. All involved hard choices among attractive alternatives to meet crucial objectives for development and health. And the reason I keep serving? I learn so much.”